Related Citations

  • Benjamin H. Barton, An Article I Theory of the Inherent Powers of the Federal Courts, 61 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1, 14-18 (2012).

    Arguing that Congress was meant to have “substantial power” over the judiciary.

  • James E. Pfander, Article I Tribunals, Article III Courts, and the Judicial Power of the United States, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 643, 672-84 (2005).

    Drawing upon founding era dictionaries, the records of the Federal Convention, the drafting history, and the Federalist Papers (among other sources), to elucidate the differences between article I tribunals and article III inferior courts.

  • Michael G. Collins, Article III Cases, State Court Duties, and the Madisonian Compromise, 1995 Wis. L. Rev. 39 (1995).

    Discussing the understandings of the founders, early Congresses, and Joseph Story as to whether state courts were able to take on Article III cases and controversies.

  • Evan H. Caminker, Why Must Inferior Courts Obey Superior Court Precedents?, 46 Stanford L. Rev. 817, 828-34 (1994).

    Looking to founding era dictionaries, the drafting history of Article III, and the records of the federal and several state conventions to analyze the meaning of “inferior courts,” as juxtaposed with “supreme court.”

  • Akhil Reed Amar, A Neo-Federalist View of Article III: Separating the Two Tiers of Federal Jurisdiction, 65 B.U. L. Rev. 205, 231 (1985).

    Discussing the extent of Congress’s power to limit federal jurisdiction and concluding in part that the Framers did not intend to require Congress to create lower federal courts.